Objectives Low-income and-middle-income countries (LMICs) are increasing investment in research and development, yet there remains a paucity of neurotrauma research published by those in LMICs. The aim of this study was to understand neurosurgeons’ experiences of, aspirations for, and ability to conduct and disseminate clinical research in LMICs. Design This was a two-stage inductive qualitative study situated within the naturalistic paradigm. This study committed to an interpretivist way of knowing (epistemology), and considered reality subjective and multiple (ontology). Data collection used online methods and included a web-based survey tool for demographic data, an asynchronous online focus group and follow-up semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s Reflexive Thematic Analysis supported by NVivo V.12. Setting LMICs. Participants In April–July 2020, 26 neurosurgeons from 11 LMICs participated in this study (n=24 in the focus groups, n=20 in follow-up interviews). Results The analysis gave rise to five themes: The local landscape; creating capacity; reach and impact; collaborative inquiry; growth and sustainability. Each theme contained an inhibitor and stimulus to neurosurgeons conducting and disseminating clinical research, interpreted as ‘the neurosurgical research potential in LMICs’. Mentorship, education, infrastructure, impact and engagement were identified as specific accelerators. Whereas lack of generalisability, absence of dissemination and dissemination without peer review may desensitise the impact of research conducted by neurosurgeons. Conclusion The geographical, political and population complexities make research endeavour challenging for neurosurgeons in LMICs. Yet in spite of, and because of, these complexities LMICs provide rich opportunities to advance global neurosurgery. More studies are required to evaluate the specific effects of accelerators of research conducted by neurosurgeons and to understand the effects of desensitisers on high-quality, high-impact clinical research.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Motivations for outcome data collection in TBI are threefold: to improve patient outcomes, to facilitate research, and to provide the means and methods for wider injury surveillance. Such data play a pivotal role in population health, and ways to increase the reliability of data collection following TBI should be pursued. As a result, technology-aided follow-up of patients with neurotrauma is on the rise; there is, therefore, a need to describe how such technologies have been used. A scoping review was conducted and reported using the PRISMA extension (PRISMA-ScR). Five electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Global Health, PsycInfo, and Scopus) were searched systematically using keywords derived from the concepts of “telemedicine,” “TBI,” “outcome assessment,” and “patient-generated health data.” Forty studies described follow-up technologies (FUTs) utilizing telephones (52.5%, n = 21), short message service (SMS; 10%, n = 4), smartphones (22.5%, n = 9), videoconferencing (10%, n = 4), digital assistants (2.5%, n = 1), and custom devices (2.5%, n = 1) among cohorts of patients with TBI of varying injury severity. Where reported, clinical facilitators, remote follow-up timing and intervals between sessions, synchronicity of follow-up instances, proxy involvement, outcome measures utilized, and technology evaluation efforts are described. FUTs can aid more temporally sensitive assessments and capture fluctuating sequelae, a benefit of particular relevance to TBI cohorts. However, the evidence base surrounding FUTs remains in its infancy, particularly with respect to large samples, low- and middle-income patient cohorts, and the validation of outcome measures for deployment via such remote technology.

The increasing shift toward a more generalized medical undergraduate curriculum has led to limited exposure to subspecialties, including neurosurgery. The lack of standardized teaching may result in insufficient coverage of core learning outcomes. Social media (SoMe) in medical education are becoming an increasingly accepted and popular way for students to meet learning objectives outside formal medical school teaching. We delivered a series of case-based discussions (CbDs) over SoMe to attempt to meet core learning needs in neurosurgery and determine whether SoMe-based CbDs were an acceptable method of education. Twitter was used as a medium to host 9 CbDs pertaining to common neurosurgical conditions in practice. A sequence of informative and interactive tweets were formulated before live CbDs and tweeted in progressive order. Demographic data and participant feedback were collected. A total of 277 participants were recorded across 9 CbDs, with 654,584 impressions generated. Feedback responses were received from 135 participants (48.7%). Participants indicated an increase of 77% in their level of knowledge after participating. Of participants, 57% (n = 77) had previous CbD experience as part of traditional medical education, with 62% (n = 84) receiving a form of medical education previously through SoMe. All participants believed that the CbDs objectives were met and would attend future sessions. Of participants, 99% (n = 134) indicated that their expectations were met. SoMe has been shown to be a favorable and feasible medium to host live, text-based interactive CbDs. SoMe is a useful tool for teaching undergraduate neurosurgery and is easily translatable to all domains of medicine and surgery.

Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major global health issue, but low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face the greatest burden. Significant differences in neurotrauma outcomes are recognised between LMICs and high-income countries. However, outcome data is not consistently nor reliably recorded in either setting, thus the true burden of TBI cannot be accurately quantified.Objective: To explore the specific contextual challenges of, and possible solutions to improve, long-term follow-up following TBI in low-resource settings.Methods: A cross-sectional, pragmatic qualitative study, that considered knowledge subjective and reality multiple (i.e. situated within the naturalistic paradigm). Data collection utilised semi-structured interviews, by videoconference and asynchronous e-mail. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s six-stage Reflexive Thematic Analysis.Results: 18 neurosurgeons from 13 countries participated in this study, and data analysis gave rise to five themes: Clinical Context: What must we understand?; Perspectives and Definitions: What are we talking about?; Ownership and Beneficiaries: Why do we do it?; Lost to Follow-up: Who misses out and why?; Processes and Procedures: What do we do, or what might we do?Conclusion: The collection of long-term outcome data plays an imperative role in reducing the global burden of neurotrauma. Therefore, this was an exploratory study that examined the contextual challenges associated with long-term follow-up in LMICs. Where technology can contribute to improved neurotrauma surveillance and remote assessment, these must be implemented in a manner that improves patient outcomes, reduces clinical burden on physicians, and does not surpass the comprehension, capabilities, or financial means of the end user. Future research is recommended to investigate patient and family perspectives, the impact on clinical care teams, and the full economic implications of new technologies for follow-up.

Introduction Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global public health concern; however, low/middle-income countries (LMICs) face the greatest burden. The WHO recognises the significant differences between patient outcomes following injuries in high-income countries versus those in LMICs. Outcome data are not reliably recorded in LMICs and despite improved injury surveillance data, data on disability and long-term functional outcomes remain poorly recorded. Therefore, the full picture of outcome post-TBI in LMICs is largely unknown. Methods and analysis This is a cross-sectional pragmatic qualitative study using individual semistructured interviews with clinicians who have experience of neurotrauma in LMICs. The aim of this study is to understand the contextual challenges associated with long-term follow-up of patients following TBI in LMICs. For the purpose of the study, we define ‘long-term’ as any data collected following discharge from hospital. We aim to conduct individual semistructured interviews with 24–48 neurosurgeons, beginning February 2020. Interviews will be recorded and transcribed verbatim. A reflexive thematic analysis will be conducted supported by NVivo software. Ethics and dissemination The University of Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee approved this study in February 2020. Ethical issues within this study include consent, confidentiality and anonymity, and data protection. Participants will provide informed consent and their contributions will be kept confidential. Participants will be free to withdraw at any time without penalty; however, their interview data can only be withdrawn up to 1 week after data collection. Findings generated from the study will be shared with relevant stakeholders such as the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies and disseminated in conference presentations and journal publications.